Legal Opinion
Broome v. Broome
California Supreme Court
Decided January 30, 1919No. L. A. Nos. 4434, 4435PublishedCited by 8 opinions
APPEALS from an interlocutory decree of partition and an order denying a new trial and from an order of the Superior Court of Ventura County appointing a receiver. Robert M. Clarke and Merle J. Rogers, Judges. Modified and affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.
This is an action in partition. The property sought to be partitioned is the following described real estate situate in the county of Ventura, state of California:
“All that tract of land known as the Broome Estate Ranch, consisting of the larger part of the Rancho Guadalasca, comprising two thousand acres more or less; the land called the ‘Conejo Tract,’ adjoining the Rancho Guadalasca on the east, comprising about six hundred sixty-three acres, and that part of the Rancho La Colonia which is situated between the county road known as the Hueneme Road, and the northwesterly boundary of said…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Thruston v. MinkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
- Rountree v. MontagueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Bogan v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Harrington v. GoldsmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hirschberg v. OserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Elbert, Ltd. v. Federated Etc. PropertiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Rutledge v. RutledgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Elbert, Ltd. v. Federated Income PropertiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- United States Fire Insurance v. GanzDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.